@rabite @attritionorg Maybe I'm missing a key point.
@stylewar You said jury doesn't need to be technical to understand "basic actions" for starters. In compsec cases, they really do.
-
-
@attritionorg point is that they don't need to understand all perfectly in order to come to a reasonable conclusion. -
@stylewar "case is about motivation, action & outcome" and "they don't need to understand all to come to reasonable conclsn". Contradiction? -
@attritionorg you deleted the word "perfectly"... No contradiction. -
@stylewar so "partially" understand and come to a reasonable outcome? I don't think that is fair to any accused. -
@attritionorg neither is it fair to expect experts to only be convicted by experts. That's a nonsensical and unachievable notion bro. -
@stylewar right, don't expect jury of experts. but do want a jury of reasonably educated on a given subject matter. has to be middle ground -
@attritionorg that's fair. I agree... Would be interesting to hear what the jury thought. Why they decided. I just don't assume they failed. -
@stylewar i don't know if they failed or not. would have to read entire case transcript to see arguments and presentation.
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@attritionorg wish we had a *better* example of a researcher wrongly redressed .. so we could close the door on$hit like this. -
@stylewar Was his motivation profit or malicious, in your opinion? If not, is there a diff between that disclosure and whistleblower?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
@attritionorg that relates to action ... Not motivation, or outcome. The case is about motivation, action & outcome.Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.